Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that the legitimacy of the global order depends not on economic progress alone, but on the progressive naturalization of its epistemological foundations, through ‘new solutions’ to old problems by states and development agencies. New solutions become methods of social control through which the dominant visions of what count as viable futures are reproduced. We critique efforts to humanize development (e.g., by the World Bank, Amartya Sen) as evidence of development's epistemological crisis. Deploying Karl Polanyi's distinction between formal and substantive economy, we consider examples of substantive economy, which realize equality through strategic sovereignty and representational power, in collective and individual terms. These represent practical and epistemological ‘spaces of hope’ for critique of the crisis of the market epistemology that infects development studies and international relations. Este documento sostiene que la legitimidad del orden global no depende solamente del progreso económico, sino de la naturalización progresiva de sus fundamentos epistemológicos, a través de ‘nuevas soluciones’ a problemas antiguos mediante estados y agencias del desarrollo. Las nuevas soluciones se convierten en métodos de control social, a través de los cuales se reproducen las visiones dominantes de lo que cuenta como futuros viables. Criticamos los esfuerzos de humanizar al desarrollo (p.e. Banco Mundial, Amartya Sen) como evidencia de la crisis del desarrollo epistemológico. Utilizando la distinción de Kart Polanyi entre economía formal y economía sustancial, consideramos ejemplos de una economía sustancial, la cual realiza la igualdad por medio de una soberanía estratégica y un poder representativo, en términos colectivos e individuales. Estas, entre otras iniciativas, representan ‘espacios de esperanza’ prácticos y epistemológicos para criticar la crisis de la epistemología de mercado que infecta a los estudios de desarrollo y las relaciones internacionales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".